(14-07-2016 05:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: " Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period”.

A graveyard keeper's dwelling (ONE) is not a "town".
You have no evidence.
You *claiming* something is no evidence.

Your cherry-picking is absolutely hilarious. Here, let me provide both the title to that article, as well as the complete text you cherry-picked from:

"According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, 'The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period'.

"The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). In addition, several fragments of chalk vessels were found, which were only used by Jews in this period because such vessels were not susceptible to becoming ritually unclean."

No one said anything about a mere "graveyard keeper's dwelling." You are making shit up as you go along.

Concede, because you cannot win this argument with deception.

So a 2000 year old hut is why i should believe that all of reality was
1) created
and
2) it was some christian god?

Hmm, call me again, when a second hut was found.

edit: update: a trench was found, a trench! Yay! Gimme a pottery or a smith, a stable or so and im up for prayer next sunday.

It could be a farmer's house, or an inn, or a lot of things... but what it is not is evidence of a town.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

There was a town, on the other end of that valley... just not at the site that would later become Nazareth. It's not enough to say "in the first century", either, since a lot can happen between the year 1 and the year 70, when we finally have evidence of a priest moving there.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

(14-07-2016 09:26 AM)GoingUp Wrote: Speculation, and now prove there ever existed a funerary caretaker. The article also shows a trench being built, which was common to Jews defending against a Roman invasion.

Of course it's speculation; that's what "could be" implies.

Quote:So you think some funerary caretaker dug a trench to defend the graveyard from the Romans?

Please fuck off?

One dwelling doesn't make a fucking town, asshole.
Go fuck yourself, thank you very much.

And again we see the Fallacy of Exclusion, asshole.

Let's ignore the evidence in it's entirety in favor of cherry-picking one aspect only and hammer away at it like some fucking retarded young earth creationist does on evolution, shall we?

And since I have been labeled a cunt already, sure ... I can gleefully go fuck myself.

(14-07-2016 10:17 AM)GoingUp Wrote: And again we see the Fallacy of Exclusion, asshole.

But it is not because no important evidence has been excluded.

Pro tip: the Gospels are not evidence - they are the claim.

So 5 books in the Bible that mention a town called Nazareth do not support each other in regards to the town actually existing? Even if we count the Synoptics as one, we still have 3 distinct books in the bible indicating the existence of Nazareth.

And do I really need to tell you that all these books were written as independent books before the bible was assembled as a bible? And do I need to tell you that all of them are dated to the first century by virtually all reputable historians?

And the inscription which states how a priestly family was designed to settle in Nazareth in AD 70 somehow is not worth anything? How could they settle in a town in AD 70 that didn't exist before they settled in it? And why would a Jewish inscription designate Jewish priests to a fictitious town invented by Christians? Does any of this make any fucking sense to you at all?

And then we have all this archeological evidence of people existing in Nazareth in the 1st century. We have people buried there in tombs, using tools of pottery in their everyday living, and an actual house unearthed by archeologists, and yet you are trying to tell me there's no evidence of people living there?

How fucked up are you on your atheism dude?

Quote:

Quote:Let's ignore the evidence in it's entirety in favor of cherry-picking one aspect only and hammer away at it like some fucking retarded young earth creationist does on evolution, shall we?

Since I have taken into account all of the archaeological evidence, I am not cherry-picking.

No, you fucking haven't taken anything into account other than your bias zealous atheism. You are as fucked up as any young earther I have ever encountered.

(14-07-2016 10:23 AM)Chas Wrote: But it is not because no important evidence has been excluded.

Pro tip: the Gospels are not evidence - they are the claim.

So 5 books in the Bible that mention a town called Nazareth do not support each other in regards to the town actually existing? Even if we count the Synoptics as one, we still have 3 distinct books in the bible indicating the existence of Nazareth.

And do I really need to tell you that all these books were written as independent books before the bible was assembled as a bible? And do I need to tell you that all of them are dated to the first century by virtually all reputable historians?

And the inscription which states how a priestly family was designed to settle in Nazareth in AD 70 somehow is not worth anything? How could they settle in a town in AD 70 that didn't exist before they settled in it? And why would a Jewish inscription designate Jewish priests to a fictitious town invented by Christians? Does any of this make any fucking sense to you at all?

And then we have all this archeological evidence of people existing in Nazareth in the 1st century. We have people buried there in tombs, using tools of pottery in their everyday living, and an actual house unearthed by archeologists, and yet you are trying to tell me there's no evidence of people living there?

How fucked up are you on your atheism dude?

What a pile of apologetics that is.
The independence of the Gospels from each other is disputable. But the fact that one version of a myth 'supports' another version of a myth (ignoring the inconsistencies) doesn't make it factual.

Quote:

Quote:Since I have taken into account all of the archaeological evidence, I am not cherry-picking.

No, you fucking haven't taken anything into account other than your bias zealous atheism. You are as fucked up as any young earther I have ever encountered.

You just make shit up. Have you actually considered what the archaeological evidence indicates? Apparently not if you think one dwelling place proves a town existed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-07-2016 10:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote: So 5 books in the Bible that mention a town called Nazareth do not support each other in regards to the town actually existing? Even if we count the Synoptics as one, we still have 3 distinct books in the bible indicating the existence of Nazareth.

Quote:And do I really need to tell you that all these books were written as independent books before the bible was assembled as a bible? And do I need to tell you that all of them are dated to the first century by virtually all reputable historians?

Flat out totally false. "Virtually all reputable" historians have no interest in the gospels, and almost ''all" are unqualified to even comment on this period of history, as it's not their chosen period of study. Of those that are interested, almost all have an inherent conflict of interest, and are PAID by institutions which would fire them if they actually questioned the gospels or the historicity of Jesus. All "reputable" means (to you) is, they agree with you on this subject.

These texts are not "independent" in any way. They were written with a bias of *faith* by members of the same believing faith community who were in no way witnesses of the events. They merely repeated what they had heard others make faith statements about.

You are as biased in your own stance as any "young earther" ever was. In fact you actually told us you were not about to even read a book by Carrier to even find out what his thoughts or Price's thoughts were on historicity.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(14-07-2016 10:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote: So 5 books in the Bible that mention a town called Nazareth do not support each other in regards to the town actually existing? Even if we count the Synoptics as one, we still have 3 distinct books in the bible indicating the existence of Nazareth.

And do I really need to tell you that all these books were written as independent books before the bible was assembled as a bible? And do I need to tell you that all of them are dated to the first century by virtually all reputable historians?

And the inscription which states how a priestly family was designed to settle in Nazareth in AD 70 somehow is not worth anything? How could they settle in a town in AD 70 that didn't exist before they settled in it? And why would a Jewish inscription designate Jewish priests to a fictitious town invented by Christians? Does any of this make any fucking sense to you at all?

And then we have all this archeological evidence of people existing in Nazareth in the 1st century. We have people buried there in tombs, using tools of pottery in their everyday living, and an actual house unearthed by archeologists, and yet you are trying to tell me there's no evidence of people living there?

How fucked up are you on your atheism dude?

What a pile of apologetics that is.

Awww .. play the apologetic card when the evidence stacks up against you because you don't have any legitimate argument whatsoever to contest it.

That is so cute!

Quote:The independence of the Gospels from each other is disputable. But the fact that one version of a myth 'supports' another version of a myth (ignoring the inconsistencies) doesn't make it factual.

FALSE PREMISE!

1. The supernatural aspects of Jesus qualify him as a myth, therefore Nazareth is also a myth.

2. The supernatural aspects of Jesus qualify him as a myth.

3. Therefore Nazareth is a myth.

Nice going, dude.

Quote:

Quote:No, you fucking haven't taken anything into account other than your bias zealous atheism. You are as fucked up as any young earther I have ever encountered.

You just make shit up. Have you actually considered what the archaeological evidence indicates? Apparently not if you think one dwelling place proves a town existed.

The only one making any shit up is you zealots.

The evidence indicates that people lived directly in Nazareth during the first century. Even if it's just one unearthed dwelling place so far, the rest of the evidence along with it- including the many tombs, graffiti, pottery, designation of priests, trench, biblical references- definitely indicate it was occupied by far more than just one family in one house.

Awww .. play the apologetic card when the evidence stacks up against you because you don't have any legitimate argument whatsoever to contest it.

That is so cute!

Quote:The independence of the Gospels from each other is disputable. But the fact that one version of a myth 'supports' another version of a myth (ignoring the inconsistencies) doesn't make it factual.

FALSE PREMISE!

1. The supernatural aspects of Jesus qualify him as a myth, therefore Nazareth is also a myth.

2. The supernatural aspects of Jesus qualify him as a myth.

3. Therefore Nazareth is a myth.

Nice going, dude.

Quote:You just make shit up. Have you actually considered what the archaeological evidence indicates? Apparently not if you think one dwelling place proves a town existed.

The only one making any shit up is you zealots.

The evidence indicates that people lived directly in Nazareth during the first century. Even if it's just one unearthed dwelling place so far, the rest of the evidence along with it- including the many tombs, graffiti, pottery, designation of priests, trench, biblical references- definitely indicate it was occupied by far more than just one family in one house.

All biased interpretation.
There is no actual evidence that Nazareth was a populated town early in the 1st Century.

Nice try. You play the "zealot-angry-militant-atheist" card as much as anyone *plays* anything. You are not special, and you are not different. In fact you are not even conversant with the issues as they are discussed, (Carrier and Price) in 2016.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.